What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Open Debate on the Trinity with JLB

daninthelionsden said:
Jeff A Benner is not universally accepted as accurate in his interpretations without bias and when pressed, he is quoted as confessing "After many months of study I found my answer, Jesus truly was and is God in the flesh."
Click to expand...
I think you miss the point. Text doesn't say everlasting Father. If that was the translation then the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint would have translated it as such
 
Butch5 said:
The grammar are the rules by which people communicate. If that doesn't prove it to you, I don't know. It couldn't have been the Father. If Moses was told to hide his face the implication is that there was something that wasn't to be looked upon. If there was something that Moses could see, there'd be no reason to hide his face. Well, no one can see the Father. So, that means the it couldn't have been the Father in the bush. It wasn't the Holy Spirit because a spirit can't be seen. That means it was either Jesus or another angel. Which ever it was they spoke in the first person, as if they were God. The only one I'm aware of that speaks in the first person for God is Jesus.
Click to expand...
It was the Father. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus. His Spirit was there. "Through the angel" When God Himself was on the mountain Moses was not able to see His face and live. That God spoke to Moses through His angel.

Lets stick with the text.
 
Butch5 said:
I think you miss the point. Text doesn't say everlasting Father. If that was the translation then the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint would have translated it as such
Click to expand...
The Dead Sea Scrolls does indeed say aviy which literally translates as Father. It is the "everlasting" which is in question.
 
I agree. It obviously was not His true nature, and He next:
Ex 23:20- Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21- Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him.

As it is in the name "Jesus", and the identity is specified!

1 Cor 10:1- Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2- all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3- all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
 
daninthelionsden said:
The Dead Sea Scrolls does indeed say aviy which literally translates as Father. It is the "everlasting" which is in question.
Click to expand...
We have our Father, Christ has HIS- and moreover, since Jehovah empowered His son to CREATE mankind, he is and everlasting "Father" to use... I guess it has to be determined by the exact translation, which might not be known until the New Heaven and the New Earth!
 
theMadJW said:
We have our Father, Christ has HIS- and moreover, since Jehovah empowered His son to CREATE mankind, he is and everlasting "Father" to use... I guess it has to be determined by the exact translation, which might not be known until the New Heaven and the New Earth!
Click to expand...
I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and my God through faith and no amount of biased verbal/linguistic gymnastics will ever change that.
 
Butch5 said:
As I've said multiple times. If Jesus was simply claiming to be alive when Abraham was, the correct grammar would be, 'before Abraham was, I was'. Saying 'before Abraham was, I am', would be incorrect grammar. Either it was incorrect grammar or it was a quote. They are the two options.
Click to expand...
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:

"The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27" - T and T Clark, 1963.

G. B. Winer ("the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century" - Wallace) also tells us:

"Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58]." - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi)[12] 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Also see Brooks and Winbery’s Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85, “Durative Present,” University Press of America, 1979.

Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it "The Progressive Present" and tells us that such a present tense verb often
"has to be translated into English by a sort of 'progressive perfect' ('have been')..." - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

"b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M's emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, 'I learn that you have moved' (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

"To say that this use is 'present for perfect' (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D and M's emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The 'perfect indefinite tense' in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], 'I learn that he has gone,' has a force which is approximated only by ... 'I have learned that he has gone'.

"c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as 'from the beginning' in Jn 15:27 and 'before Abraham came into existence' in John 8:58 which both act as 'adverbs of time' - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: 'from beginning with me you are' and usually rendered into English as: 'you have been with me from the beginning' - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB]." - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton chronon meth humon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as 'before Abraham came into existence'], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a 'temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.'] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.[13] [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
 
tigger 2 said:
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:

"The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27" - T and T Clark, 1963.

G. B. Winer ("the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century" - Wallace) also tells us:

"Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58]." - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi)[12] 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Also see Brooks and Winbery’s Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85, “Durative Present,” University Press of America, 1979.

Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it "The Progressive Present" and tells us that such a present tense verb often
"has to be translated into English by a sort of 'progressive perfect' ('have been')..." - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

"b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M's emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, 'I learn that you have moved' (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

"To say that this use is 'present for perfect' (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D and M's emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The 'perfect indefinite tense' in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], 'I learn that he has gone,' has a force which is approximated only by ... 'I have learned that he has gone'.

"c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as 'from the beginning' in Jn 15:27 and 'before Abraham came into existence' in John 8:58 which both act as 'adverbs of time' - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: 'from beginning with me you are' and usually rendered into English as: 'you have been with me from the beginning' - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB]." - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton chronon meth humon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as 'before Abraham came into existence'], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a 'temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.'] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.[13] [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
Click to expand...
Do you intend boring one to death with verbiage?

He either said one or another: "I was" , "I existed", or in this disgusting illustration of Church Dogma~
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tigger 2 said:
A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:

"The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27" - T and T Clark, 1963.

G. B. Winer ("the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century" - Wallace) also tells us:

"Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58]." - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi)[12] 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Also see Brooks and Winbery’s Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85, “Durative Present,” University Press of America, 1979.

Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it "The Progressive Present" and tells us that such a present tense verb often
"has to be translated into English by a sort of 'progressive perfect' ('have been')..." - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

"b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M's emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, 'I learn that you have moved' (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

"To say that this use is 'present for perfect' (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D and M's emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The 'perfect indefinite tense' in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], 'I learn that he has gone,' has a force which is approximated only by ... 'I have learned that he has gone'.

"c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as 'from the beginning' in Jn 15:27 and 'before Abraham came into existence' in John 8:58 which both act as 'adverbs of time' - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: 'from beginning with me you are' and usually rendered into English as: 'you have been with me from the beginning' - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB]." - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:
"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton chronon meth humon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as 'before Abraham came into existence'], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a 'temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.'] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.[13] [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]
Click to expand...
What is your argument?
 
Randy said:
It was the Father. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus. His Spirit was there. "Through the angel" When God Himself was on the mountain Moses was not able to see His face and live. That God spoke to Moses through His angel.

Lets stick with the text.
Click to expand...
I am sticking with the text. That's why I pointed out the grammar
 
daninthelionsden said:
Our belief in God the Son has always been and will always be a matter of faith. Those prying at Scripture with linguistic crowbars will never deter the elect from our Lord.
Click to expand...
No one is trying to deter the elect from the Lord. We're simply trying to get to the bottom of the concept of One God in three persons.
 
Butch5 said:
No one is trying to deter the elect from the Lord. We're simply trying to get to the bottom of the concept of One God in three persons.
Click to expand...
I believe God is as the Jews say. He is beyond the abilities of the human mind to completely understand or the human language to completely describe. After all I have seen, the Trinity is the closest description I can find. How do you describe Him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top